Having a discussion with a friend here about if a pipe under a drive or farm road is considered to be a ALTA survey requirement. Hopefully the response from here will help our discussion about this matter. Thanks
If you are locating drainage pipes and structures as part of the ALTA table A requirements, then yes.
A culvert pipe under the road can be considered an "improvement" and would be covered by Item 8, and Item 11(b) (Storm Drainage) of Table A. If no Table A items are selected, many state's minimum technical standards require you to show "all improvements", so a storm drain culvert could fit that catagory and a stricter State Requirement supercedes the ALTA Requirement.
We usually show the pipe location and the size and type on all of our plats as "improvements".
Or, are you asking if a found pipe at a corner satisfies the bounding requirements, then I'd say yes...
If you are asking if a Pipe set, satisfies the "set a monument at each corner" requirement, then I'd say yews, too...
Maybe you could clarify your question?
Actually it was a 10" CMP under a old farm road that had nothing to do with boundary, but in my opinion, should be considered a improvement. Item 8 or 11b were not part of the ALTA requirements. I showed the pipe and my friend told me that it was going to far out of the way to show such things. I show the guy wire anchors for utility poles and that was to much also in his opinion. He considers rural farm surveys (ALTA or not) a little different than I do. Was just a friendly discussion about why I went to that much trouble for such natters. He hardly if ever does any ALTA's. I always show everything I find out there in the field on surveys. But then again, I have never been able to convince him how much easier life would be if he were to get GPS equipment as a tool to use in surveying! Thanks
Ask him what the State Minimum Technical standards say about it. Showing the pipes and guy anchors, etc. is more in line with most State Regs I have seen. Being an ALTA would really have nothing to do with it then.
When in doubt, show it. I don't think it hurts to have too much info on a plat, as long as it is legible.
> When in doubt, show it. I don't think it hurts to have too much info on a plat, as long as it is legible.
I agree.
No one cares about that pipe until they do. And when they do they'll look for someone to hang while trying to protect their own neck.
Why is it that if you miss one pipe that is the ONE PIPE that the ENTIRE survey is all about? No matter where it is, on or off site, missing it causes everyone to pass a fluffy loaf?
I would show it
This reminds me of a question
You are doing an ALTA survey. You discover something on the tract that obviously should be shown. The problem is you have absolutely not a clue in the world as to what it is. Do you label it BFO (O = object) and go on?
